Boobs: What's the deal? (NSFW)

OK, we've had the OP complain about the one-liners and off-topic posts and try to get the thread back on track. If we're going to have a conversation about this topic, let's try not to act like middle schoolers. If you aren't answering the question posed in the thread topic, you're running the risk of having your comment deleted by the staff.

I know I posted in this thread before, but I don't remember what I said. As a guy, there are lots of reasons that boobs are great. First, I don't have them, so they're something new. They also represent something forbidden since they're rarely seen. There are physical responses - they change shape and the nipple erects before and after orgasm. Plus there are fun things to do with them - sucking, titty fucking, watching them move during sex. All of those are big turn-ons.

 

I'm not sure what the complaint is about. Guess I missed it. Boobs are everywhere you look. A top or dress without cleavage is rare, because everyone likes breasts. The deal is boobs are hot!

 

Let me go ahead then and reiterate: What is it with Boobs? Boobs are a secondary sex characteristic. They are a signal of sexual receptivity (modified because, aside from menstruation and sometimes even then, nubile and menopausal human women are always technically sexually receptive. Earth Girls are Easy indeed.) In primates (and most mammals) with more quadrupedal locomotion, the same signals are given by the buttocks and vulva.

Now... Why are different sizes and shapes more or less attractive:
Smaller, firmer breasts with forward or upward pointing nipples tend to project more of an air of youth. A younger woman has more childbearing years ahead of her than an older woman, and is therefore, on a pure reproductive drive level (where this sort of sub-rational preference forms) more desirable.

Larger breasts are on the one hand 1) Are easier to see, so are a more effective signal, 2) Promise more abundant milk, making for a woman more likely to provide for a child (there's that old drive to reproduce again), 3) Heavily impact on oral and infantile and oedipal tendencies (It's a real motherf*cker, nu?), 4) From a sexual technique perspective provide more possibilities, and 5) tend to be associated with more heavy-set women, which, though the preference has been culturally deprecated over the last half century or so, are better fed and therefore, in the resource poor environment that humanity has enjoyed for most of its history, healthier, all things being equal, and on the other hand tend to signal age, making them somewhat less desirable from a pure reproductive standpoint. (And on the gripping hand, give one more to grip.)

Pendulous breasts on the one hand tend to signal successful motherhood, but on the other signal age. Downward pointing nipples do the same.

Very small breasts, on the other hand are less noticeable and when noticed tend to signal a lack of preparedness for motherhood.

Now all that is evolutionary biology and and psychology primarily impacted thereby. On a more individual ego driven psychological level, one tends to imprint on characteristics associated with significant events in one's sexual development. So one will prefer the type of breasts associated with any significant imprints. (Did the woman who gave you a predilection for stockings with a seam up the back have large or small breasts? All things being equal, that's probably the sort of breast you prefer. And God forbid you imprint on kids. You might, maybe, get by the rest of your life with a preference for small breasts and shaven genitals, but you might be totally f*cked.)

All right, that's my second or third semi-scholarly contribution to this discussion. Can I post some boobies now? ;-)

 

ok, im going to be ignorant for a minute. what is an OP?

 

It's the curves, me think.
My eye is drawn to the curves, and not just those curves.

 

Larger breasts are not better at making milk than small ones. Now, if I were to attempt rationalize the appeal of larger breasts on evolutionary terms it would go something like this:

While larger breasts are not any better and the manufacture of milk, there is a tendency for breast to swell as a part of milk production. Which means on average larger breasts are more likely to be actively producing milk and while milk production doesn't directly signal desirable reproductive characteristics, current/previous reproductive activity can. And however slight these two margins are (breast size = reproductive success and current reproductive success = future reproductive success), they may well sufficient for natural selection to latch on to (see what I did there) and apply some evolutionary pressure.

 

Original Poster.

 

Doesn't matter if they are better at it or not. They LOOK like they OUGHT to be better at it.

 

You're too kind.

 

Or Old Poopiepants.

 

Ah, but larger breasts are more likely to be FULL of milk than smaller ones.

 

This made me chuckle because it gets at something which is/has been heavily debated by evolutionary biologists. That is, whether or not the appearance of advantageous genetic makeup is sufficient for natural selection to work on or if the appearance has to be backed up by the goods. And if it's even possible to have the appearance without it being backed up sufficiently by solid genetics.

 

I'd think the prevalence of protective mimicry (e.g. Viceroy and Monarch butterflies) would argue that it's appearance that counts. Further, in this matter, "Bigger is Better" seems to be if not a biological human psychological tendency, then at very least an nearly universal cultural one.

 

Mimicry confers clear benefits alternative to and well in excess of a characteristic thought to exist solely to present the appearance of genetic fitness, which is the key point.

The classic example is the excessive tail of a peacock which is supposed could serve no purpose beyond an advertisement of fitness. The question would be whether or not the tail could have developed if were actually irrelevant to fitness and only perceived as such, or if it is possible to develop such a costly display it without it being linked directly to fitness. In simpler terms, not only "Could the display be a lie?", but also "Is it even possible to lie in such a way?"

 

Ah, well, as breasts are both a sexual signalling device and a prerequisite for feeding infants in a pre-agricultural setting, and I am drawing on both in my original argument in favor of the attractiveness large breasts (though not at the expense of smaller ones), I'd say we've got that argument about played out at this point. Certainly presenting the appearance of greater capacity of motherhood synergistically enhances the already increased sexual signalling function. No?

 

Tophat665,

Oh, ho ho! You're clearly not considering the most important part of this thread: oversimplified body type comparison graphics!



I mean, I never said that I didn't want pictures of tits in this thread. I just wanted them to serve a purpose.

Ya know, other than making me adjust my junk when the downward angle pressure becomes too great.

 

4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20
Have them bathed and sent to my chambers.
If I must pick just one, make it 13.

 

Can't decide...need more PIX

 

Tough decision. Need more options